On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:55:37 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:

> Am 18.12.2023 um 12:19:45 Uhr schrieb noel:
>
>> IPv6 despite the fanbois claims, is not as stable as IPv4, plenty of
>> routes magically start working when you get your users to disable IPv6.
>
> The something in the network is broken.
>
> Some small amount of network operators are also too stupid to understand
> IPv6 und for example place mapped IPv4 addresses in the AAAA.
> Even if people tell them, they are too stupid to fix their fault.

Yep

>
>> Also I've found users own over-reaching firewall rules can interfere
>> with it.
>
> Firewall admins must understand IPv6.
>
> I run IPv6 for more than 3 years and it works.

I've run it since anout 2010/11 or there abouts and yes, its simple
enough but requires more than just unfettered localhost

On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 12:50:23 +0100, immibis wrote:

> On 12/18/23 11:20, Marco Moock wrote:
>> Am 18.12.2023 um 11:11:53 Uhr schrieb immibis:
> >
>> Then those people are incompetent. There are many VPS providers out
>> there that properly support IPv6.
>
> Missing the point. New IPv4 residential networks require CGNAT gateways,
> and their customers need VPSes to get IP addresses of their own.

Not unless you have deep pockets and can buy up subnets - but I refuse to
entertain that idea if they inflate the price more than 15% above what
RIR will charge (some RIRs are exhausted - but not all)

On 12/18/23 22:58, noel wrote:
> Not unless you have deep pockets and can buy up subnets - but I refuse
> to entertain that idea if they inflate the price more than 15% above
> what RIR will charge (some RIRs are exhausted - but not all)

Most, if not all, of the ISPs that I've used had an option where you
could subscribe to globally routed IP address blocks. Usually powers of
2 for 8 IPs or larger.

I usually see tings for between $0.50 and $3.00 each IP per month.

It's not great, but it is a LOT better than the headache that is an
entire /24 and all the complications that go with it.

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/18/23 07:06, The Doctor wrote:
>> I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
>
>I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years
>before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.
>
>Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
>to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
>provider and as such block access from them.
>
>There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
>unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6
>network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address".
>
>I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers. But mostly with
>what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.

That happens in the IPv4 world more and more as well. The content
providers have the notion of an "eyeball network" which locks out
things like VPN providers, tunnel providers, people like me who
implement their internet breakout through a rented machine in a
colocation, public Wifi hotspots, enterprise networks...

This is becoming as obnoxioius as spam filters. Internet slowly stops
being fun.

Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

On 12/18/23 15:07, Grant Taylor wrote:
> On 12/18/23 07:06, The Doctor wrote:
>> I need to get an IPv6 block myself.
>
> I started with and used Hurricane Electric IPv6 in IPv4 tunnel for years
> before my various ISPs provided native IPv6.
>
> Sadly, one of the problems I've found is that some services that I want
> to consume (think streaming) consider HE / Tunnelbroker to be a VPN
> provider and as such block access from them.
>
> There were many years that I had Amazon and Netflix purposefully
> unreachable via IPv6 while I had an otherwise perfectly functional IPv6
> network because the services said "we don't like your source IPv6 address".
>
> I've seen this behavior with multiple IPv6 providers.  But mostly with
> what can loosely be considered VPN and / or some VPS providers.
>
>
>
> Grant. . . .

IPv4 has the same problem. This is nothing to do with IPv6, and
everything to do with capitalism being shit.

As Marc said, they whitelist certain networks as "eyeball networks". If
your IP doesn't happen to belong to such a network, too bad - you're
obviously a scraper, so the site says, fuck off! It's as bad as email
spam filtering.

*Actual* scrapers, of course, can rent SOCKS proxies located on eyeball
networks, in bulk quantities, from a business whose entire business
model is to sell SOCKS proxies on eyeball networks, for about $0.50 a
month per proxy (cheaper in bulk). This is even better access to eyeball
networks than eyeballs like yours or mine have. So you have two
businesses fighting each other, achieving nothing in reality, but
wasting money, and everybody loses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

On 12/19/23 04:25, immibis wrote:
> This is nothing to do with IPv6,

I find the problem to be multiple orders of magnitude worse on IPv6 than
I do on IPv4.

So I think that it has at least something to do with IPv6 vs IPv4. ;-)

--
Grant. . . .

Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/19/23 04:25, immibis wrote:
>> This is nothing to do with IPv6,
>
>I find the problem to be multiple orders of magnitude worse on IPv6 than
>I do on IPv4.
>
>So I think that it has at least something to do with IPv6 vs IPv4. ;-)

Yes, people think that IPv6 is unimportant so they tune their filters
in much more obnoxious ways than they would dare doing with the
protocol that everybody uses.

Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:

> Yes, people think that IPv6 is unimportant so they tune their filters
> in much more obnoxious ways than they would dare doing with the
> protocol that everybody uses.

Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that they
have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of "stealth", it
would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and still have an
operational network.

On 12/19/23 15:28, Tom Furie wrote:
> Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that they
> have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of "stealth", it
> would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and still have an
> operational network.

Neighbor Discovery (think ARP) in IPv6 is uses ICMPv6. So you can't
block it completely and have IPv6 work.

You might be able to prevent forwarding of ICMPv6 between interfaces and
still use it locally.

--
Grant. . . .

Am 19.12.2023 um 21:28:15 Uhr schrieb Tom Furie:

> Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that
> they have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of
> "stealth", it would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and
> still have an operational network.

That is already a stupid idea with IPv4, because it also uses ICMP
(Typ3 Code 4) fragmentation needed packages to indicate that the PMTU
is smaller. Although, fragmentation by a router is also possible, it is
not mandatory to do it.

Tom Furie <tom@furie.org.uk> wrote:
>Marc Haber <mh+usenetspam1118@zugschl.us> writes:
>> Yes, people think that IPv6 is unimportant so they tune their filters
>> in much more obnoxious ways than they would dare doing with the
>> protocol that everybody uses.
>
>Something I've noticed where people are having IPv6 trouble is that they
>have a habit of blocking *all* ICMPv4 (some perception of "stealth", it
>would seem), think they can do the same with ICMPv6 and still have an
>operational network.

Thankfully blocking ICMPv6 completely renders IPv6 inoperational so
that the problem can be noticed immediately. The problems caused by
blocking ICMPv4 are a LOT more subtle to track down.

Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " |
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834

Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>
> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
> them to.

I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
longer offered.

>
> I sort of wonder if they purposely shut off some sort of filtering in
> preparation for this and that's why the amount of spam spiked the way it
> did recently.

The amount of spam seems to have been increasing daily for about two
years now. I see this not only in Usenet.
The bots are becoming more intelligent, for example, through AI.

> Or, more likely, some internal service was replaced and the replacement
> wasn't compatible with the old Google Groups Usenet gateway code, thus
> the spam was no longer detected and prevented.

I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a
short time.

--
Best regards,
Timo

On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
> >
> > I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
> > them to.
>
> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
> longer offered.

["service" referring to googlegroups]

Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
but derive any income whatsoever.

In article <KE=TbQZu1TymBR1gH@bongo-ra.co>,
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
>Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>> >
>> > I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>> > them to.
>>
>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>> longer offered.
>
>["service" referring to googlegroups]
>
>Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
>how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
>but derive any income whatsoever.

No Google Ads for me!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

On 12/23/23 19:07, Timo wrote:
> I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a
> short time.

I agree.

However that is predicated by management allowing the programmers to do so.

I believe this was more deliberate and business level than it was
anything else.

--
Grant. . . .

In article <um9u9h$l2i$1@tncsrv09.home.tnetconsulting.net>,
Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> wrote:
>On 12/23/23 19:07, Timo wrote:
>> I think less so. Google employs good programmers who could fix this in a
>> short time.
>
>I agree.
>
>However that is predicated by management allowing the programmers to do so.
>
>I believe this was more deliberate and business level than it was
>anything else.
>
>

Debatable tothe end. Let the business students make a MAsters and PH.D.
Thesis out of this!

>
>--
>Grant. . . .

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
> Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>>>
>>> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>>> them to.
>>
>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>> longer offered.
>
> ["service" referring to googlegroups]
>
> Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
> but derive any income whatsoever.

To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

In article <uma9j9$2nk73$5@dont-email.me>,
candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
>> Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>>>> them to.
>>>
>>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>>> longer offered.
>>
>> ["service" referring to googlegroups]
>>
>> Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
>> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
>> but derive any income whatsoever.
>
>To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
>survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..

They needed to maintain good administration!!

>--
>user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>

--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com

The Doctor wrote:
> In article <uma9j9$2nk73$5@dont-email.me>,
> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>> On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
>>> Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>>>>> them to.
>>>>
>>>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>>>> longer offered.
>>>
>>> ["service" referring to googlegroups]
>>>
>>> Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
>>> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
>>> but derive any income whatsoever.
>>
>> To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
>> survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
>
> They needed to maintain good administration!!
>
>> --
>> user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>>
>
>

How much it would it have cost Google to have detailed one programmer to
handle this stuff? Google Groups is revenue-negative on its own, but
searching is Google's original core business and continuing to carry
access to Usenet - without reams of Thai-language spam - should have
made perfect sense to them.
I'm wondering if that "Usenet is dead" message eminating from PC-rag was
not supplied to the friendly (to Google) journalist by Google as a PR
piece to justify their decision. Google is poorer for having cut
themselves off from that source, but you can't rely on a herd of MBAs to
take a long-term view.

In article <umbnmb$19qm0$1@paganini.bofh.team>,
Andrew <Doug@hyperspace.vogon.gov> wrote:
>The Doctor wrote:
>> In article <uma9j9$2nk73$5@dont-email.me>,
>> candycanearter07 <no@thanks.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/24/23 02:52, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 02:07:44 +0100
>>>> Timo <timo@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Am 15.12.2023 um 02:55 schrieb Grant Taylor:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure that they could have done a LOT better if management wanted
>>>>>> them to.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think it's simply not a profitable service, and that's why it's no
>>>>> longer offered.
>>>>
>>>> ["service" referring to googlegroups]
>>>>
>>>> Google stopped putting adverts on googlegroups many years ago. After that
>>>> how could they make any money from it ? I don't mean actually make profit
>>>> but derive any income whatsoever.
>>>
>>> To be fair, Google has a ton of other services and could probably
>>> survive leaving it up. From a business perspective, however..
>>
>> They needed to maintain good administration!!
>>
>>> --
>>> user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
>>>
>>
>>
>
>How much it would it have cost Google to have detailed one programmer to
>handle this stuff? Google Groups is revenue-negative on its own, but
>searching is Google's original core business and continuing to carry
>access to Usenet - without reams of Thai-language spam - should have
>made perfect sense to them.
>I'm wondering if that "Usenet is dead" message eminating from PC-rag was
>not supplied to the friendly (to Google) journalist by Google as a PR
>piece to justify their decision. Google is poorer for having cut
>themselves off from that source, but you can't rely on a herd of MBAs to
>take a long-term view.

All are idiots for not supporting a pillar of Internet!
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@nk.ca Ici doctor@nk.ca
Yahweh, King & country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism ; unsubscribe from Google Groups to be seen
Merry Christmas 2023 and Happy New year 2024 Beware https://mindspring.com